Consent Letters at Nepal's DOI: Turning a Trademark Opposition into a Settled Filing
A trademark consent letter can turn an opposition at the DOI into settled coexistence. When Nepal's Department of Industry accepts consents, and how to draft them.
Your application is opposed — or about to be — by the owner of an earlier mark. The similarity is arguable, the goods are not identical, and neither business wants a proceeding. The instrument that ends most of these standoffs is one page: a letter in which the earlier owner consents to your registration.
It works often enough to be standard practice — and fails often enough that the drafting and the timing matter.
In short
A trademark consent letter in Nepal is the earlier owner's written consent to a later application — filed in the opposition or examination context at the Department of Industry as evidence that the party with the most direct interest sees no realistic confusion. The DOI weighs it but is not bound by it: registrability is decided on the statutory grounds, so a consent supports an arguable case rather than rescuing a hopeless one. Drafting that works identifies both marks precisely, states the consent's scope (classes, goods, territory), and comes from a registration that is current — a consent from a lapsed or unmaintained mark is paper with no foundation.
What a trademark consent letter does — and does not do
Functionally, the consent letter is evidence. The party best placed to claim confusion — the earlier mark's owner — states in writing that it does not oppose the registration. In an opposition proceeding, that statement undercuts the opposition's own foundation; in examination, it answers the Section 18(1) objection the examiner raised on the earlier owner's mark.
What it does not do is bind the Department. The DOI decides registrability on the statute's grounds — similarity, distinctiveness, descriptiveness — and a private agreement cannot create registrability the law refuses. Practice is consistent: a consent moves an arguable case across the line; it does not move a case where the marks are effectively identical for the same goods.
When a consent is the right instrument
| Situation | Instrument |
|---|---|
| Application opposed by an earlier owner; similarity arguable | Consent letter + withdrawal of the opposition on terms |
| Examination objection based on the earlier owner's mark | Consent letter filed in response to the objection |
| Genuine two-brand future foreseen by both sides | Coexistence agreement — the fuller instrument, of which the consent is the public face |
| Marks near-identical, same goods | Not a consent case — rebrand or a fight on the merits |
| Earlier owner wants payment for peace | Consent terms negotiated — commercial, documented, and drafted with care |
Drafting the consent that gets weighed
- Identify both marks precisely — registration or application numbers, classes, and the marks as they appear on the register
- State the scope — what exactly is consented to: the application in its class, for its specification, in Nepal
- Ground it in reason — a sentence on why the earlier owner sees no confusion (different goods, different channels, different regions) carries more weight than an unexplained yes
- Sign with authority — the earlier owner's authorised signatory, with the company details matching the register entry
- Date it and keep the chain — the consent supports the file at the DOI and the negotiation record behind it
The consent inside a DOI opposition proceeding in Nepal
Start the conversation early in the window
The opposition window runs about 90 days from Bulletin publication. A consent conversation opened at day 20 has time to conclude and be papered; opened at day 80, it competes with the drafting deadline.
Negotiate the terms behind the letter
The letter is the public instrument; the commercial understanding behind it — scope limits, no-challenge terms, anything paid — should be written down between the parties. A consent without agreed terms invites the dispute to resume at cancellation stage.
File it where it does work
In an opposition, the consent accompanies the withdrawal or forms part of the exchange of submissions. In examination, it is filed in response to the objection letter. Either way, the filed copy — with proof of the consenting party's registration — enters the written record the DOI decides on.
Keep both marks maintained
The consent's foundation is the consenting party's registration — current, renewed on its 7-year cycle, recorded with the correct owner. The same maintenance duty now attaches to both sides of the arrangement.
The failure modes
Consents fail in predictable ways: the letter is vague about which marks it covers; the consenting party's registration turns out to be lapsed or in someone else's name; the consent is drafted after the opposition deadline, when it arrives as context rather than as case-dispositive evidence; or the parties treat it as immunity and skip the coexistence terms that keep the peace afterwards.
The mature practice pairs the consent with its commercial sibling: a short coexistence agreement recording how the two marks will operate. The letter settles the filing; the agreement settles the market.
Want this handled for your brand?
IP Watch monitors new trademark publications in Nepal and alerts you to potentially conflicting marks — with the context needed to review them.
This article is general information, not legal advice.